Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. SARVESH REFRACTORIES (P) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

Decided
22 November 2007
Judges listed
ASHOK BHAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 444 · 2007 INSC 1176
Also cited as
  • (2007) 13 SCC 601 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Being aggrieved by the order September 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold Appellate Tribunal (Now known as Customs, Excise & Appellate Tribunal) [for short 'the Tribunal] in Appeal No.E-294/2001, the assessee-appellant has filed the present appeal.

p. 445, margin C

2

The appellant purchased 'Loadall' from Mis. Escorts The cost element of the 'Loadall' included excise duty to Rs.1,79,328/-. The appellant claimed MODVAT credit in said item under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 'the Rules').

p. 445, margin E

3

Since the said item had been classified by Mis. Escorts the manufacturer and supplier, under Heading 84.29 and had under the said heading, the authority-in-original, viz., Dy. Commissioner disallowed the MODY AT credit to the appellant by observing said Heading 84.29 has been specifically ousted from the "capital goods" under Rule 57Q of the Rules. The Dy. Commissioner imposed a penalty ofRs.50,000/- under Rule l 73Q(bb) of

p. 445, margin F

4

On appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner observed that 'Loadall' being an improvised version of material equipment would properly fall under Heading 84.27 and not under Heading 84.29. It was further observed that forklift truck or crane or similar material handling equipments have been held to be eligible capital goods. On this finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant would be entitled to claim MODV AT credit.

pp. 445–446, margin F

5

Revenue, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was accepted by setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring that of the authority-in-original. It was held that the 'Loadall' having been classified by the Central Excise Officer having jurisdiction over the manufacturer's factory as falling under Heading 84.29, the appellant, who is the consumer of those goods, could not get the classification of the manufacturer changed from 84.29 to 84.27.

p. 446, margin B

6

The finding recorded by the Tribunal is unexceptionable. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the appellant could not get the classification of 'Loadall' changed to Heading 84.27 from 84.29, declared by the manufacturer. Insofar as the penalty imposed by the authority-in-original is concerned, we are of the view that a case for imposition of penalty is not made out and accordingly the same is set aside and deleted. Rest of the order of the Tribunal restoring the order of the authority-in-original is continued.

p. 446, margin C

7

Counsel for the appellant has raised an alternate argument on the interpretation of Rule 57Q of the Rules which had not been raised either in reply to the show cause notice or before any of the authorities below. Under the circumstances, we do not permit the appellant to raise this alternate submission.

p. 446, margin E

8

The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.

p. 446, margin F